chronicle which contained them deferve in- CHAP.

spection..

In the year one thousand seven hundred and fixteen the commons propofed to confer with the lords upon heads of bills, and this friendly correfpondence lafted till the year one thousand seven hundred and thirtyseven the intercourfe gave great weight to their joint recommendation, it became a matter of jealousy to government, and it broke off, upon a dispute, artfully created, it is faid, by administration. The particulars of the proceedings of the laft conference, and of this whimsical rupture, which I had from a near and dear friend of mine, Mr. Hill, (the late lord Dungannon,) who was a manager, I shall relate from his authority : the pleasantry of the contrivance, and the odd circumstances which accompanied it, may apologise for dwelling fo long upon this article.

A conference was defired by the commons relative to a breach of privilege com N 3 mitted

V..

CHAP. mitted by ferjeant Purdon, an attendant of V. the lords, against one of their members, which was granted accordingly.

The room which was deftined for conferences in the new parliament house, unlike the other arrangements of the architect fir Edward Piers in that noble building, was remarkably cold and inconvenient; it was used, as it is now, for a lobby or waiting-room for the lords fervants and chairmen; a large deal table ftands with a rail near the door that opens into the portico.

On the evening preceding the conference the table was pufhed clofe, and either nailed or tied to the rail: this was faid to have been contrived by lord Anglesey, whether from pleafantry or policy is doubtful.

When the commons came to the conference they difcovered that they could not as usual stand within the rail, and they were obliged to remain among the fervants and the crowd which affembled before the. chamber

V.

chamber of parliament. Mr. Hill reported CHAP. this unpleasant reception, which caused an angry meffage, and an impolite reply: the dispute became violent; and ferjeant Bettesworth, so well known in fatire, and for celebrated in the rhymes of Swift, inflamed matters still more. The two houses refolved to break off their ufual mode of correfpondence; and fince that period they have never met at a conference.

very

Of this feffion fir Richard Cox drew up a curious narrative: it was lent to me many years ago by Mr. Fofter, the present fpeaker. I do not find this manuscript was ever printed, though it contains an account of the regulation of the gold coin, and other curious particulars.

While Poyning's law prevailed in its full vigour, while heads of bills were only recommended by one house, it seems to have been defirable to induce the two houses to confer, and to give efficacy to these propofitions by a joint recommendation. But as bills

N 4

V

CHAP. bills now go from one houfe to the other. without the intervention of the privy council of either kingdom, as no alterations can be made in bills, fave only in the two houses; as laws are paffed by a commiffion, fimilar to that which the king iffues, when he does not think it expedient to give the royal affent in perfon in the English parliament*; under thefe circumftances it does not seem defirable to revive a mode of proceeding which has produced fo many evils in former times, and the more fo, as meffages answer every purpose of communica tion between the two houses,

IN tracing the principal tranfactions in the early Journals, the observation, That there was not any inftance of the examination of accounts, or of the expenditure of public money till after the Revolution, furprised

* Of the origin, changes, and modifications of Poyning's law, and the various modes of paffing laws in different periods, an ample detail has been given in the fecond chapter of this work.

me

me much: a negative affertion is ever ha- CHAP. zardous and presumptuous; time and place require more accurate investigation than what can be supposed to fall to any man's lot, however confident of his own labour and accuracy: it is neceffary for me to de fend this extraordinary affertion by the authority of parliament..

In the feffion of one thoufand fix hundred and ninety-two, the house of commons defired to have the accounts of the different officers of his majesty's revenue, laid before a committee of grievances. A committee appointed for that purpose, reported three precedents of a fimilar exa mination: the firft was of the 17th of April one thousand fix hundred and fixty-two, where the chief baron of the Exchequer produced tables of fees, which were taken by the sheriffs; and the other two, were of accounts laid before the commons of England, the 8th and 13th of October one thousand fix hundred and ninety. It is evident the first does not apply to the expenditure